Josephus Testimonium: Historical Evidence of Jesus' Existence?

[Evo]

(This was split off from this thread - https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=706058 )
I have for many, many years believed that Jesus, of the Christian bible did not exist. He is not mentioned in Roman records. The Romans were sticklers for record keeping.

He is not mentioned by Jewish chroniclers of the time (Josephus) [STRIKE]nor in the epistles of Paul, long before the (supposed) gospels were written. I won't get into that as it has already been pointed out above.[/STRIKE]

The history of the era is still very interesting and should be read.

I'm retracting the statement about Paul since it's confusing, as Paul only references Jesus after he was "resurrected". (thank you Atyy for pointing that out.

 

[micromass]

He is not mentioned by Jewish chroniclers of the time (Josephus)

Huh?

And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus... Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.

Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man... Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion... Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death.

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

 

[marcus]

Hi Micromass, thanks for the three quotes. I feel OK about the first--I've seen that quote from Josephus several other places. I'm not a scholar and not especially skeptical of ancient sources being tampered with by copyists. I can only tell you my subjective FWIW hunches.

To me the first quote sounds genuine because kind of tossed off, kind of contemptuously: Oh yeah they stoned this guy, and he happened to be the brother of this other guy they were calling "Christ".

Some later copyist who forged some inserted mention of Jesus and put it into Josephus text would, I suspect, have done it with more awe and respect, hinting at how very important this personage was.

That's more the tone I hear in the third quote. With no scholarly expertise to go on, I still do feel it's questionable.

BTW liked your "French fish" problem!

 

[micromass]

Hi Micromass, thanks for the three quotes. I feel OK about the first--I've seen that quote from Josephus several other places. I'm not a scholar and not especially skeptical of ancient sources being tampered with by copyists. I can only tell you my subjective FWIW hunches.

To me the first quote sounds genuine because kind of tossed off, kind of contemptuously: Oh yeah they stoned this guy, and he happened to be the brother of this other guy they were calling "Christ".

Some later copyist who forged some inserted mention of Jesus and put it into Josephus text would, I suspect, have done it with more awe and respect, hinting at how very important this personage was.

That's more the tone I hear in the other two quotes. With no scholarly expertise to go on, I still do feel they are questionable.

I guess it would be interesting to find out what the various provenances are of various versions of Josephus and whether they differ significantly.

Sure, I completely agree with you. Whether the quotes are genuine and not inserted by translators is very debatable. So it is to me very possible that Jesus wasn't mentioned in the book at all. But claiming that it's certain that he was never mentioned is certainly incorrect. That's all I wanted to show.

BTW liked your "French fish" problem!

Haha, thanks!

 

[marcus]

I reconsidered the second quote and edited my post so as to leave it out of consideration. I see your point in general: can't rule out that there was some historical reference by non-Christian.

 

[Evo]

Sure, I completely agree with you. Whether the quotes are genuine and not inserted by translators is very debatable. So it is to me very possible that Jesus wasn't mentioned in the book at all. But claiming that it's certain that he was never mentioned is certainly incorrect. That's all I wanted to show.

The passage that was inserted into the work of Josephus has been widely discredited. You should know by now that I usually look things up before I post. While it's still debated, the arguments that the passages are a forgery are pretty convincing.

Everything demonstrates the spurious character of the passage. It is written in the style of Eusebius, and not in the style of Josephus. Josephus was a voluminous writer. He wrote extensively about men of minor importance. The brevity of this reference to Christ is, therefore, a strong argument for its falsity. This passage interrupts the narrative. It has nothing to do with what precedes or what follows it; and its position clearly shows that the text of the historian has been separated by a later hand to give it room. Josephus was a Jew—a priest of the religion of Moses. This passage makes him acknowledge the divinity, the miracles, and the resurrection of Christ—that is to say, it makes an orthodox Jew talk like a believing Christian! Josephus could not possibly have written these words without being logically compelled to embrace Christianity. All the arguments of history and of reason unite in the conclusive proof that the passage is an unblushing forgery.

For these reasons every honest Christian scholar has abandoned it as an interpolation. Dean Milman says: "It is interpolated with many additional clauses." Dean Farrar, writing in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, says: "That Josephus wrote the whole passage as it now stands no sane critic can believe." Bishop Warburton denounced it as "a rank forgery and a very stupid one, too." Chambers' Encyclopaedia says: "The famous passage of Josephus is generally conceded to be an interpolation."

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/marshall_gauvin/did_jesus_really_live.html

The pertinency of these questions will be recognized when it is remembered that the passage quoted above concerning Jesus has long been regarded as a forgery. Writing in the Encyclopaedia Britannica Dean Farrar says That Josephus wrote the whole passage as It now stands no critic can believe.

http://books.google.com/books?id=mc...w stands no sane critic can believe."&f=false

This also gives more background on the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#Testimonium_Flavianum_2

Paul L. Maier calls the case for the total authenticity of the Testimonium "hopeless".[4] Almost all modern scholars reject the total authenticity of the Testimonium,

 

[micromass]

The passage that was inserted into the work of Josephus has been widely discredited. You should know by now that I usually look things up before I post. While it's still debated, the arguments that the passages are a forgery are pretty convincing.



http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/marshall_gauvin/did_jesus_really_live.html

Sorry, but this website has an agenda. I don't accept it as unbiased resource.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#Testimonium_Flavianum_2

There is a difference between total authenticity and partial authenticity. This difference is important.

You are cherry picking your scholars and your examples. Fact is that many scholars at least believe that the quotes are partially authentic. Wikipedia gives a much more balanced overview: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#Detailed_Analysis

 

[atyy]

I agree that the passages are doubtful, but Maier who is referenced by Evo in the quote "Paul L. Maier calls the case for the total authenticity of the Testimonium "hopeless".[4]" actually goes on to say "The weight of evidence, then, strongly suggests that Josephus mentioned Jesus in both passages. He did so in a manner totally congruent with the New Testatement portrait of Jesus, and his description, from the vantage point of a non-Christian, seems remarkably fair, particularly in view of his known proclivity of roasting false messiahs as the sorts who misled the people and brought on the Romans." http://books.google.com/books?id=kyaoIb6k2ccC&source=gbs_navlinks_s (p662-663). My quotation does not indicate my agreement or disagreement with Maier's judgement.

 

[Evo]

Sorry, but this website has an agenda. I don't accept it as unbiased resource.

I'm not using the article, I am using the references. Did you even bother to read the second reference Bibliotecha Sacra? (Bibliotheca Sacra is a theological journal published by Dallas Theological Seminary)

Fact is that many scholars at least believe that the quotes are partially authentic.

What that statement refers to is the authenticity of the entire Testimonium Flavianum. Some scholars believe that the entire work is a forgery, whereas others believe that most or part of it is authentic, with the parts about Jesus having been added later.

Yes, after reading the pros and cons, I do believe the references are a forgery.

 

[Evo]

I agree that the passages are doubtful, but Maier who is referenced by Evo in the quote "Paul L. Maier calls the case for the total authenticity of the Testimonium "hopeless".[4]" actually goes on to say "The weight of evidence, then, strongly suggests that Josephus mentioned Jesus in both passages. He did so in a manner totally congruent with the New Testatement portrait of Jesus, and his description, from the vantage point of a non-Christian, seems remarkably fair, particularly in view of his known proclivity of roasting false messiahs as the sorts who misled the people and brought on the Romans." http://books.google.com/books?id=kyaoIb6k2ccC&source=gbs_navlinks_s (p662-663). My quotation does not indicate my agreement or disagreement with Maier's judgement.

The entire paragraph

Based on this observation alone, Paul L. Maier calls the case for the total authenticity of the Testimonium "hopeless".[4] Almost all modern scholars reject the total authenticity of the Testimonium, while the majority of scholars still hold that it includes an authentic kernel.[4][115]

Again, he is referring here to the authenticity of the Testimonium itself.

Maier then goes on to say

Paul Maier states that a comparison of Eusebius' reference with the 10th-century Arabic version of the Testimonium due to Agapius of Hierapolis indicates that the Christian interpolation present in the Testimonium must have come early, before Eusebius.[4] Richard Van Voorst also states that the interpolation likely took place some time between Origen and Eusebius.[73]

So does this sound more in line with the part I quoted or what you found elsewhere? This is where he is referring to the pieces about Jesus not being in the Arabic version. Apparently he seems to contradict himself with this book "Eusebius: The Church History". Here he appears to be saying that both he and Van Voorst are assuming there was Christian Interpolation, no? I've read so many pieces from so many sources in the past 2 days that it's all blurring.

If there is this much interest in the matter of Christian interpolation of the Testimonium, then perhaps we should split this discussion off into it's own thread. There is a lot written pro and con as to it's validity.

Sounds like micro will take the pro side in the discussion, sounds like you are neutral? I wonder what our resident historian Marcus has to say?

 

[atyy]

Also, Evo must have meant something very specific by writing that the Jesus of the Christian Bible is not mentioned in the epistles of Paul. Paul mentions Jesus many times, even if you discard all the epistles that are not unanimously agreed to be written by Paul. Try for example Galatians, where he mentions the crucifixion of Jesus, and also some disagreement he had with James, the brother of Jesus (the subject of one of the above-mentioned passages attributed to Josephus).

 

[atyy]

Maier then goes on to say So does this sound more in line with the part I quoted or what you found elsewhere? This is where he is referring to the pieces about Jesus not being in the Arabic version. Apparently he seems to contradict himself with this book "Eusebius: The Church History". Here he appears to be saying that both he and Van Voorst are assuming there was Christian Interpolation, no? I've read so many pieces from so many sources in the past 2 days that it's all blurring

As I understand, Maier's suggestion is that even if you remove the later interpolations, the strong probability remains that Jospehus did refer to Jesus in his original work. So I believe that Maier's idea is that there was both a reference to Jesus in the original work, as well as later interpolations.

 

[Evo]

Also, Evo must have meant something very specific by writing that the Jesus of the Christian Bible is not mentioned in the epistles of Paul. Paul mentions Jesus many times, even if you discard all the epistles that are not unanimously agreed to be written by Paul. Try for example Galatians, where he mentions the crucifixion of Jesus, and also some disagreement he had with James, the brother of Jesus (the subject of one of the above-mentioned passages attributed to Josephus).

Yes, you are of course, correct, my understanding was that he wrote of Jesus in a mystical sense, more symbolically. This I could be wrong about as it is going by my ancient memory. Now I will need to research this as I hate being wrong.

 

[atyy]

Yes, you are of course, correct, my understanding was that he wrote of Jesus in a mystical sense, more symbolically. This I could be wrong about as it is going by my ancient memory. Now I will need to research this as I hate being wrong.

Nah, that's basically fine in the sense Paul mentions the death of Jesus, but none (that's a bit strong, not sure I'm remembering correctly) of the events in the life of Jesus before that, whereas the gospels do.

 

[Evo]

In the meantime, this has the pros and cons.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html

I'm splitting the Testimonium discussions off into a new thread of that title in history.

 

[atyy]

Quick technical question: Josephus has two references to Jesus. Only one of them, I believe, is in the "Testimonium Flavianum". But I believe the discussion is about both references?

 

[micromass]

Quick technical question: Josephus has two references to Jesus. Only one of them, I believe, is in the "Testimonium Flavianum". But I believe the discussion is about both references?

Yes. And let's add the reference to John the Baptist to this.

 

[Evo]

Yes. And let's add the reference to John the Baptist to this.

That's in the last link I posted. Testimonium is part of The Antiquities.

Would you please read the link?

 

[Evo]

Quick technical question: Josephus has two references to Jesus. Only one of them, I believe, is in the "Testimonium Flavianum". But I believe the discussion is about both references?

The first is Jewish Antiquities 18.3.3 Testimonium Flavianum

The second is Jewish Antiquities 20.9.1

They are both discussed in my last link.

 

[AlephZero]

He is not mentioned in Roman records. The Romans were sticklers for record keeping.

I don't have any view on whether or not the account in the gospel is historically correct, but if it is correct it omits some background information which would of course have been well known to its original readers.

In general the Romans weren't very interested in the religious activities of the citizens of their empire, so long as they obeyed Roman civil law and didn't actively attack the Roman pantheon of gods. (Though that situation changed later on, in the time of Nero for example.)

They were quite content to let the Jews administer their own religions laws through their religious law courts, except that the religious courts were not allowed to impose the death penalty without the approval of the Roman civil administration.

That fact is assumed without explanation in the gospel accounts of the death of Jesus. The "back story" of the events is that the Jewish court first attempted to incriminate Jesus of a roman civil offense, such as claiming to be a king in opposition to the Roman administration. If that had been successful, they could have let the Roman legal system deal with him which would have got him out of their hair.

When that failed, the backup plan was to convict him of the religious crime of blasphemy, and then get the Roman authorities to rubber stamp the death penalty. Piilate was already "on probation" from previous failures to sort out similar problems, and knew that his job was on the line if there was any more civil (i.e. religious) unrest.

Apparently Pilate's personal opinion was that Jesus was no great threat to anybody (except possibly himself), but he wasn't going to terminate his own career by holding out against the local theocracy - and he certainly had a good motive for not making a full report of the matter to his boss, if he could avoid it!

 

[Evo]

Apparently Pilate's personal opinion was that Jesus was no great threat to anybody (except possibly himself), but he wasn't going to terminate his own career by holding out against the local theocracy - and he certainly had a good motive for not making a full report of the matter to his boss, if he could avoid it!

This goes with what I've also read.

 

[atyy]

Nah, that's basically fine in the sense Paul mentions the death of Jesus, but none (that's a bit strong, not sure I'm remembering correctly) of the events in the life of Jesus before that, whereas the gospels do.

Yes, I did forget at least one pre-crucifixion story that is mentioned in Paul and the gospels - the last supper. It's mentioned by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11.

 

[rbj]

Evo, i am trying to understand which writings and which oral traditions that you're accepting as having some historical basis and which you do not.

for example, did Pythagoras exist as an historical human being? how 'bout Abraham? or Siddhārtha Gautama? Temujin?

aren't there many ancient historical figures in which the written record was created decades after their lives? what existed between the lives of these persons and the written stories is only oral tradition? how much of that oral tradition do we accept and what do we reject?

i'm only addressing issues of historicity, not issues of faith belief nor claims of supernatural acts.

 

[Evo]

Evo, i am trying to understand which writings and which oral traditions that you're accepting as having some historical basis and which you do not.

for example, did Pythagoras exist as an historical human being? how 'bout Abraham? or Siddhārtha Gautama? Temujin?

aren't there many ancient historical figures in which the written record was created decades after their lives? what existed between the lives of these persons and the written stories is only oral tradition? how much of that oral tradition do we accept and what do we reject?

i'm only addressing issues of historicity, not issues of faith belief nor claims of supernatural acts.

I'm only discussing the debate over whether or not the references to Jesus in the work of Josephus is real or fake. I'm in agreement with the scholars that believe the references were faked by the church long after he died. I've posted all of the information and links, people can decide for themselves.

 

[arildno]

Neither have, as yet, brought up the very interesting commment made by the 9th century patriarch Photius.

Commenting on the Jewish historian Justus of Tiberias (he lived in the first century), Photius writes, in his Myrobiblon:

"Read the Chronicle of Justus of Tiberias,4 entitled A Chronicle of the Kings of the Jews in the form of a genealogy, by Justus of Tiberias.5 He came from Tiberias in Galilee, from which he took his name. He begins his history with Moses and carries it down to the death of the seventh Agrippa of the family of Herod 6 and the last of the kings of the Jews. His kingdom, which was bestowed upon him by Claudius, was extended by Nero, and still more by Vespasian. He died in the third year of the reign of Trajan, when the history ends. Justus's style is very concise, and he omits a great deal that is of the utmost importance. Suffering from the common fault of the Jews, to which race he belonged, he does not even mention the coming of Christ, the events of His life, or the miracles performed by Him"

---
Paragraph 33 in:
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/photius_03bibliotheca.htm#33

 

[russ_watters]

I have for many, many years believed that Jesus, of the Christian bible did not exist.

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_Jesus

It is fine for you to want to form your own conclusion, but not being a scholar of antiquity myself, my preference is to defer to them.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_Jesus

It is fine for you to want to form your own conclusion, but not being a scholar of antiquity myself, my preference is to defer to them.

I think Evo is claiming as the book did that Jesus of Nazareth was massaged into Jesus of Christ to fit the movement.

 

[Evo]

I think Evo is claiming as the book did that Jesus of Nazareth was massaged into Jesus of Christ to fit the movement.

Yep. We know wiki is not a valid source. The person writing cherry picks to promote their viewpoint. We do know that no historians of the time mentioned him. He seems to have been created to fill a need. Now I can't state that for a fact, maybe he really existed, but wasn't important enough for his contemporaries to write about him. So were did writers 100-200 years later find information on him since there were no writings of him at the time of his life?

We're only discussing actual historical proof of Jesus, not religious writings, since we don't go there. Russ, your wiki contains debunked historical sources.

 

[atyy]

I think Evo is claiming as the book did that Jesus of Nazareth was massaged into Jesus of Christ to fit the movement.

Yep. We know wiki is not a valid source. The person writing cherry picks to promote their viewpoint. We do know that no historians of the time mentioned him. He seems to have been created to fill a need. Now I can't state that for a fact, maybe he really existed, but wasn't important enough for his contemporaries to write about him. So were did writers 100-200 years later find information on him since there were no writings of him at the time of his life?

We're only discussing actual historical proof of Jesus, not religious writings, since we don't go there. Russ, your wiki contains debunked historical sources.

So Evo acknowledges that Jesus of Nazareth existed as a historical figure?

 

[Evo]

So Evo acknowledges that Jesus of Nazareth existed as a historical figure?

No, I'm saying that the myth of Jesus was later made into a religious figure. In other words the "fictitious" Jesus of Nazareth, there is no actual record of him existing. Since there is no actual historical account of him by writers during his life, everything written about him is historically very questionable. Where did these later writers get their information since nothing was written about him during his "supposed" life?

There are those that believe despite no evidence and there are those that point out that there is no evidence.

 

[atyy]

No, I'm saying that the myth of Jesus was later made into a religious figure. In other words the "fictitious" Jesus of Nazareth, there is no actual record of him existing. Since there is no actual historical account of him by writers during his life, everything written about him is historically very questionable. Where did these later writers get their information since nothing was written about him during his "supposed" life?

So you would say Aslan's book is wrong because the person he is writing about did not exist?

 

[Evo]

So you would say Aslan's book is wrong because the person he is writing about did not exist?

Yes, as far as historical references to Jesus as a real person goes. There is no record of him. That doesn't mean he didn't exist, but it means that we cannot just believe the stories.

Aslan, a Muslim who emigrated from Iran to the USA when he was 7 and is now a professor of creative writing at the University of California-Riverside, became an Internet sensation after a July 26 interview on a Fox News webcast. Fox religion reporter Lauren Green repeatedly asked Aslan why a Muslim would write a book on Jesus.

I don't think Aslan was alive when Jesus supposedly lived.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/books/2013/08/05/zealot-jesus-fox-news/2620159/

You think he has time traveled back in time and has information no one else has? He might have written an interesting story, maybe incorporated accurate history of the time, but he has no factual information on the life of "Jesus", because there is no proof he existed, nothing was ever written about him during his "lifetime". That doesn't mean that Aslan's book isn't a nice read on the history of the time.

Maybe Jesus was a real person, maybe he was several people with the same cause, maybe he was just an idea, we don't know. I really don't want to get into a discussion of how the religion developed. It's against our rules.

 

[atyy]

No, I'm saying that the myth of Jesus was later made into a religious figure. In other words the "fictitious" Jesus of Nazareth, there is no actual record of him existing. Since there is no actual historical account of him by writers during his life, everything written about him is historically very questionable. Where did these later writers get their information since nothing was written about him during his "supposed" life?

There are those that believe despite no evidence and there are those that point out that there is no evidence.

So you would say Aslan's book is wrong because the person he is writing about did not exist?

Yes.

There's plenty of evidence from the New Testament that Jesus existed as a specific human being.

 

[Evo]

There's plenty of evidence from the New Testament that Jesus existed as a specific human being.

Uhm, and how many hundreds of years later, by people that never met him, was this written?

Remember, ACTUAL HISTORIANS at the time Jesus lived knew nothing of him. What does that tell you?

I don't mean to tear down your religion. I'm just talking about actual real time evidence that he actually existed. You can still have your religion based on an idea. A single man isn't needed.

I only wish to address the lack of confirmation of his existence by writers of the time he supposedly lived.

 

[atyy]

Uhm, and how many hundreds of years later, by people that never met him, was this written?

Remember, ACTUAL HISTORIANS at the time Jesus lived knew nothing of him. What does that tell you?

Much of the New Testament was written within a hundred years of Jesus's death. Paul wrote within 30 years, and some of the gospels were written within 70 years. Paul and the gospels all agree Jesus was a specific human being.

 

[Evo]

Much of the New Testament was written within a hundred years of Jesus's death. Paul wrote within 30 years, and some of the gospels were written within 70 years. Paul and the gospels all agree Jesus was a specific human being.

Actually, Paul claims he met Jesus AFTER he arose from the dead and only refers to Jesus as a supernatural deity. His mentions of Jesus are purely religious and nothing of historical value. That is why I decided to retract discussion of Paul as it is strictly religious visions and writings. There is nothing from anyone that actually knew someone named Jesus while they lived, enough said.

 

[atyy]

Actually, Paul claims he met Jesus AFTER he arose from the dead and only refers to Jesus as a supernatural deity. His mentions of Jesus are purely religious and nothing of historical value. That is why I decided to retract discussion of Paul as it is strictly religious visions and writings.

No, Paul also refers to Jesus as a human being.

 

[Evo]

No, Paul also refers to Jesus as a human being.

Where and based on what? He never met Jesus (oh, he met Jesus's ghost) and wasn't a contemporary. I don't want heresay, I want known historians alive during the time of Jesus that mentioned him. You don't have any.

Again, it is not my intent to debate the religion of christianity. I am merely discussing actual history.

Heck, Muhammad based his religion on hearing a voice in a cave while in a state of deprivation and meditating.

 

[atyy]

Where and based on what? He never met Jesus (oh, he met Jesus's ghost) and wasn't a contemporary. I don't want heresay, I want known historians alive during the time of Jesus that mentioned him. You don't have any.

So even if Josephus had mentioned Jesus you wouldn't accept it as evidence for the existence of Jesus.

 

[Evo]

So even if Josephus had mentioned Jesus you wouldn't accept it as evidence for the existence of Jesus.

No, it's obviously a forgery, an orthodox Jew would never write such things, plus an earlier version found did not contain those two inserted paragraphs. The paragraphs don't fit into the context either. No writers of the time were aware of these 2 paragraphs, even though if they had existed, for Christian writers, it would have been of great help to them. But they don't mention it because it didn't exist.

 

[atyy]

No, it's obviously a forgery, an orthodox Jew would never write such things, plus an earlier version found did not contain those two inserted paragraphs. The paragraphs don't fit into the context either. No writers of the time were aware of these 2 paragraphs, even though if they had existed, for Christian writers, it would have been of great help to them. But they don't mention it because it didn't exist.

That's not what I was asking. I was asking about your methodology. In the hypothetical case that Josephus could be shown to definitely mention Jesus, for example, by the discovery of an early manuscript, you would according to the criteria in #38 still have to reject the evidence since Josephus worked after Jesus had died, so he was not a contemporary, and did not meet Jesus.

 

[Evo]

That's not what I was asking. I was asking about your methodology. In the hypothetical case that Josephus could be shown to definitely mention Jesus, for example, by the discovery of an early manuscript, you would according to the criteria in #38 still have to reject the evidence since Josephus worked after Jesus had died, so he was not a contemporary, and did not meet Jesus.

Yes. Nothing makes Josephus immune to needing to have been a contemporary of Jesus. I only cited it as an example since the references were forged and frequently used to falsely verify the historical evidence of Jesus. There is no contemporary historical evidence of Jesus.

 

[arildno]

atyy:
You should also be aware of what "forgery" at that time might involve:
Is conscious deceit some sort of necessary part here?
Of course not!

To give a non-deceitful explanation, think of the following:

1. The oldest manuscripts we possesses today are the rewritings/copyings of the rewritings/copyings of..the original documents. The vast majority of this copying work is lost, as an example, The Annales of Tacitus has survived in a SINGLE copy, and that serendipity is not that unusual.

2. Thus, for many documents, what we have is the fortuitous survival of a single copying tradition, rather than having at our disposal a wealth of somewhat diverging stories from which we can reconstruct the original to an acceptable degree of probability.

3. Consider then the following scenario:
About 200 CE, a guy, for example a priest or teacher, reads Josephus, and is astounded that Josephus does not mention Jesus. A history book is a big financial investment, and he says to his scribe that in order to amend Josephus' text, he should put into the copy a few lines in red ink about Jesus, Josephus' own original in black. Thus, at this point, those benefiting from the copy is told that red text has been added, to make their history lesson more complete.

4. Now, go 100 years forwards in time. A new guy comes over an ancient book, at least a 100 years old, hooray! it is Josephus! Most of the text is in black, some though, written in red? Had the scribe run out of black ink, perhaps? Anyways, it can't be important that ink thing, (can it?), so in MY copy, I write everything in black ink.

5. Which copying tradition is it that WE happen to possess?

 

[arildno]

By one of those exasperating quirks of history, the true contemporary of Jesus, the historian Velleius Paterculus who actually served as an officer in Palestine ended his story in 29 CE, writing the finishing prayer to Emperor Tiberius in 30 A.D.

So close in time, but not close enough..

 

[russ_watters]

I think Evo is claiming as the book did that Jesus of Nazareth was massaged into Jesus of Christ to fit the movement.

Yep.

I don't understand. That still means he existed, doesn't it? Yes, a lot of the events in his life are un-documented outside of the Bible and may not have happened. But that's a long way from saying he didn't exist.

We know wiki is not a valid source.

That isn't helpful/seems to contradict the above. Regardless of if you like wiki or not, I'm now very confused about what your position is. I see two separate possibilities being argued:

1. There was a historical person named Jesus, but most of what is described in the Bible is unsupported.
2. There was no historical person named Jesus who was executed by Pilate.

I thought you were arguing number 2, but it seems like now you are jumping back and forth.

But for what it is, you can't really "cherry pick sources" on a binary issue of existing or not existing. Either Jesus appears in the text or he doesn't. But not appearing in a text doesn't provide evidence he didn't exist, it just doesn't support that he did. Negative evidence is not definitive: just like in science.

We do know that no historians of the time mentioned him...

I don't think Aslan was alive when Jesus supposedly lived.

That's a pretty tall order, Evo, to say that no historian can write about Jesus after he died. It is like suggesting physicists can't be believed about the Big Bang because they weren't there when it happened!

Russ, your wiki contains debunked historical sources.

[shrug] It also contains accepted historical sources.

Honestly, Evo, besides not being clear about what your position is, it seems you are very conveniently disregarding valid evidence because it doesn't agree with your position.

Remember, ACTUAL HISTORIANS at the time Jesus lived knew nothing of him. What does that tell you?

I'm not sure: How many actual historians are we talking about?

But in either case, what it may tell us is that Jesus wasn't an important enough person to be written about while he lived.

[Edit] And I missed a further constraint: apparently, just being a contemporary isn't enough: one has to have actually met the person being written about. I don't know what to say beyond just stating that that clearly isn't how scholarly history works. If it were, obviously the vast majority of history would be invalid. As I said, you are of course free to hold your own personal opinions(this one will make learning history very difficult!), but from an academic sense, that criteria is wrong.

 

[arildno]

"what it may tell us is that Jesus wasn't an important enough person to be written about while he lived."

Sure. Which would not be very strange, if he just died on a cross and was not resurrected at all.

 

[Evo]

To Russ, yes I was just exasperated and became too critical in response to things like wikipedia and the bible as evidence.

 

[atyy]

Yes. Nothing makes Josephus immune to needing to have been a contemporary of Jesus. I only cited it as an example since the references were forged and frequently used to falsely verify the historical evidence of Jesus. There is no contemporary historical evidence of Jesus.

That's a very unusual point of view. I disagree, and would point to Robin Lane Fox's "Unauthorized Version" for the sort of reasoning I agree with. One may or may not agree with this or that detail in Fox's book, but the overall approach is consensus. Basically, the New Testament documents and what we know about the period indicate that Jesus was a specific human being who was crucified around AD 36. There is enough evidence to date the Pauline letters to around AD 50, and those indicate the existence of a Christianity existing before that time that did already believe in the crucifixion of Jesus. Paul also indicates that he met leaders of the church in Jerusalem, including James, who is described as the brother of Jesus. We are pretty sure he's not making up meeting with James because he is describes disagreements with with James during that meeting.

 

[Evo]

That's a very unusual point of view. I disagree, and would point to Robin Lane Fox's "Unauthorized Version" for the sort of reasoning I agree with. One may or may not agree with this or that detail in Fox's book, but the overall approach is consensus. Basically, the New Testament documents and what we know about the period indicate that Jesus was a specific human being who was crucified around AD 36. There is enough evidence to date the Pauline letters to around AD 50, and those indicate the existence of a Christianity existing before that time that did already believe in the crucifixion of Jesus. Paul also indicates that he met leaders of the church in Jerusalem, including James, who is described as the brother of Jesus. We are pretty sure he's not making up meeting with James because he is describes disagreements with with James during that meeting.

We aren't talking about the "religious" Jesus, we are talking about actual historical facts. Unless you are asking me to believe that there actually was a half human half supernatural god creature that lived then. The gospels and Paul's letters are not considered valid historically by many, but that gets into discussing the religion. Let's not go there and please stick to actual historical records.

 

[russ_watters]

To Russ, yes I was just exasperated and became too critical in response to things like wikipedia and the bible as evidence.

Fair 'nuff.